Live from Abu Dhabi Connect the World takes you on a journey across continents, investigating the stories that are changing our world.
If ever there was an example of where the international effort in Afganistan isn't working, it came this week.
Five British soldiers were killed by an Afghan policeman they had been training. It came as no surprise that the Taliban claimed to have infiltrated the police and carried out the attack, but it was still a major dent in confidence of British forces who believe they are making a difference.
Kim Howells, a former Foreign Office minister with responsibility for Afghanistan, said the killings strengthened the case for bringing British troops home early.
The current UK government responded by saying forces will only be withdrawn once the Afghans have been given the training and support they need to protect the country themselves.
But, given possible infiltration, should the training continue despite the risk to more foreign soldiers' lives?
When you consider the victims in a war crimes trial, you don't normally consider the defendant first.
But ex-Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic is trying to play that card in The Hague: he's trying to take control of the proceedings by portraying himself as a victim, denied justice by the West, and sinking under the weight of more than a million pieces of paperwork thrown at him by the prosecution.
I have heard western lawyers suggest that the best thing for everyone is for him to boycott the trial so the prosecution can make its case without further distraction.
But justice should be seen to be done and, vitally, all parties concerned - including Bosnian Muslims and Serbs - need to perceive the trial as fair. How does the court strike the right balance?